to want SOME control over packed lunches?

[kinderfool]

DD's (6yo) first day back at school today and she was a bit nervous about her new class so in her packed lunch, besides her drinks bottle, ham sandwich, a plum, piece of cheese (proper cheese not cheese spread or something) and a box of cherry tomatoes (at least 10 or more), I put in a Kinder egg (a massive treat for her) to cheer her up.

Comes to pick up and she'd had a reasonable day but was anxious to tell me she'd really wanted to eat her egg but hadn't been allowed. Checked her lunch bag expecting that she'd tried to eat that first and been stopped but after checking first and asking her, found out she'd eaten every crumb of everything else and had one little bite of choc before the TA watching stopped her. And it wasn't as if certain things aren't allowed, there's no nut allergy notifications at her school, and no set down rules about what can/can't be brought.

Now I completely sympathise with the need to crack down on kids who get a lunch of Coke, crisps and chocolate AND would completely understand if it was the toy they'd objected to (but dd was told by me she could eat the egg but not to even open the toy bit, to bring it home with her instead and knowing her she'd have repeated this parrot-style to the TA), but this just seems completely overboard for the first day.

As far as I can see, what I sent her with is a balanced meal so as long as it stays that way it should be of no concern to anyone else what I want her to eat. Plus she's a skinny little thing (thanks to never staying still) so the very last thing I need is someone putting ideas into her head that it's only ever acceptable to eat uber-healthy foods.

AIBU to, in a very polite and reasonable way, tell the TA to keep her nose out?

"free education"?

Strange, I thought it came out of our taxes.

The school I recently worked in had an annual budget of £2.6 million. The parents of the 500 students didn't pay this much in taxation.

clemette, thankfully, that's not how the system works. Every taxpayer contributes towards all publicly funded services whether they use them directly or not. After all, even if you never have dc's, you have a vested interest in the doctors, lawyers. dentists, nurses, teachers, etc, whose services you might depend on having had a satisfactory education.

And as long as we live in a proper democracy, the state exists to serve the population NOT the other way round. This might be a small example, but it is an example all the same. It never ceases to amaze me how readily some people will hand over responsibility for their lives (or those of their dc) to the state.

As juuule said, it's about being the person who decides, not about demanding the right to feed my child "junk".

MsHighwater, you're not a lawyer are you?! I've been reading your responses with interest - fantastic replies - you stick with your point, never waivering - I have now given up trying to put my point across as I feel I'm banging my head against a brick wall (I'm sure those with opposing views feel the same!!!). I am going to end by saying that whilst children are at school,they are the responsibility of the school, but in my mind that means responsible for their education, safety, etc, NOT what they have in their lunchboxes!! Leave us sensible parents alone! For the record, if my DC have a treat (dare I mention the word "penguin") in their lunchboxes, they do not have it again that day - it's about what they eat over the course of a day/week, not when they eat it!! Sorry, but I am sticking fast on this and thankfully there are no rules to stipulate what can and can't go in lunchboxes at my DS's school (what a sensible head). Also, if a friend of my DS's came to our house and just so happened to have bought his own lunch, I wouldn't dream of vetting it and taking out certain items - it would not be yours to do with as you please and as a mum I would be horrified if someone did this and quite frankly, would not be fussed about visiting again!!!!! Off to make DS's lunchbox... which incidentally is healthy.....

"And as long as we live in a proper democracy, the state exists to serve the population NOT the other way round."

And in this case, the government has responded to the HUGE problem of childhood obesity - thus meeting the needs of a population who have not, as a whole, been able to respond to "freedom" they had previously. You may not agree with the methods, but living in a true democracy means you accept the voice of the majority, or challenge it through democratic means - not by stamping your feet and saying "well my children won't be doing that."

Re the taxation issue, I am of course well aware of the realities of the British tax system (including the fact that much of the public services are funded by interest payments on direct taxation). But I get slightly irked at the "we pay your wages" view that some parents have about teachers and schools.

'As juuule said, it's about being the person who decides, not about demanding the right to feed my child "junk". '

However no one is 'demanding' the right to give their DC a balanced, healthy lunch-the overall message seems to be -'it is my DC if I want to put junk in the lunch box it is my right as a parent-how dare the school suggest that I leave out crisps, sweets and fizzy drinks'!!!
I think it is such a shame that we have a huge obesity problem and some parents get so upset when anyone tries to make a difference.

But, clemette, living in a true democracy also means that the state has no business sticking its nose into matters that belong in the private domain. Concluding that, because some people use their freedom to live their lives in a way that does not conform to what the majority chooses to do (or what the state wishes they would do), that an acceptable answer is to restrict the freedom of everyone is profoundly disturbing to me.

The problem of childhood obesity is not the result of just one thing and is not amenable to simplistic solutions - and might be better addressed by, among other things, not selling off every available green space to the highest bidder for yet more identikit shoebox housing - and trying to solve it by undermining essential freedoms (yes, the right to bring your child up largely as you see fit remains an essential freedom) would cause more problems than it could every hope to solve.

discoball, thanks. I'm not a lawyer - I just find that the best way to prevail in an argument is to be right in the first place .

I think that banning sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks from lunch boxes would be a good starting point in fighting child obesity.

I really can't see why anyone wants the right to give it to their DC at lunchtime! I for one am very grateful that secondary schools have stopped having drinks vending machines etc.

"because some people use their freedom to live their lives in a way that does not conform to what the majority chooses to do (or what the state wishes they would do), that an acceptable answer is to restrict the freedom of everyone is profoundly disturbing to me."
Really??? Where does your profound disturbance at this stop? Should it be OK for people to work closely with young people without a criminal records check because the vast majority of people would do no harm for example? Or are there some measures that protect your children that you are happy to accept a slight limitation of "freedom" for?

In this case you do have the freedom - to educate your children at home.

As for "the right to bring your child up largely as you see fit remains an essential freedom", technically this is not the case. The state has the right to remove your child if you do not conform to society's standards of acceptable behaviour. I am, of course, not suggesting that the lunchbox issue is anywhere close to this but actually your basic premis is wrong.

piscesmoon, you're mixing issues. I'm only too happy for vending machines to be banned from schools. I don't relish my dd being marketed to like that and I really don't like the ambiguous position it places the school in. I dislike seeing chip vans congregating round schools like flies round you-know-what, as well. And, I expect the school to provide a properly healthy range of foods for its own meals.

For the eleventy-hundredth time, this is not about anyone demanding to be allowed to feed their child an unhealthy diet. It is all and only about expecting to be left alone to make decisions for my child without unnecessary interference. I have every right to decide whether or not my child can have some chocolate with her lunch without someone else demanding that I be forced to conform only to their narrow definition of what is healthy. If you want to give your child nothing but water and fruit, you go right ahead. I am not interested in what you feed your child. Do me the same courtesy!

There seems to be a few posters on here claiming that democracy means that we only live by, and accept the views of, the majority. This is not true - it is actually a description of mob rule. In a democracy we take into account the views of minorities, and where possible, we allow them to live as they choose.

This thread seems to have got a bit OTT as it is only about a kinder egg. But a lot of the insistence of conformity that posters argue for in many different threads on MN has really surprised me.

clemette, the word "largely" was in there for a very good reason. I do not expect to have total freedom to do absolutely anything without the state taking some interest. I do, however, expect the state to assume that I will do an acceptable job of bringing up my child until and unless I provide evidence that I am not doing so.

I'm glad that schools are putting feet down and refusing to recognise that a bag of Monster Munch and some cheap E-numbered filled confectionary equals any sort of lunch.

If that means some people attempting to make a case for the denial of freedom and individual rights, I care buggerall, to be honest.

Someone has to take positive action lest an even greater percentage of the population grow up lard-sized.

So yes OP, I'm afraid you probably ABU in adding a Kinder egg to the lunchbox although I quite understand and respect the motives behind it!

I expect that is perfectly OK in your case MsHighwater, because it is evident that you understand a balanced diet. However another parent might not and send their DC with only junk, every single day. You can't have one rule for you and one rule for them. It is simpler to have a simple rule that everyone sticks to-especially when it is a sensible rule, rather than single someone out.
I still can't see why anyone needs the right to send their DC with chocolate when they can have it after 3.30pm.

Totally agree Pikelit-I'm off to bed!

"But a lot of the insistence of conformity that posters argue for in many different threads on MN has really surprised me."

In this case, why would it surprise you that many people believe the that it is wise to limit chocolate in schools? Not only for healthy eating but for the impact it has on behaviour and learning. You seem to be suggesting blind conformity, when actually it is an acknowldegement that this is sensible and in the best interests of the school community.

Because my students are older we have this issue but with mobile phones. Some parents claim it is an infringement of their child's rights for them not to be able to ANSWER the phone if their parent rings them during the day (seriously). Luckily the vast majority of parents have impressed on their children the need for an element of conformity to help the school run smoothly. Like it or not they are part of an institution - hopefully an institution that allows free expression, but one that requires rules all the same.

I also wanted to tell you that cheestrings have a website for small children at www.mrstrings.co.uk they can make there own characters and do lots of fun stuff. i am promoting on behalf of cheestrings

Clemette, sorry I didn't respond earlier; I somehow missed your post. I am not in any way saying that children should not abide by school rules. I think it is very important that children do follow school rules and that parents support the school. My DS has just moved to secondary school and is finding it much easier because there are clear, fairly enforced rules that are adhered to. He knows what to do and what is expected which makes it easier for him to cope in a new, big school.

I think that the issue is actually about what kinds of rules a school should have, how much Government interference there should be in school life or family life, and what is or is not a parent's responsibility and choice. I do think there is an issue over that at the moment, but I do not know if lunches are part of that issue.

Chocolate is not banned from my DD's primary school, and I would not want it to be. But if many children were taking in nothing but junk and mocking my DD's healthy lunch then I can see that I might support a ban. it really depends upon what is going on in an individual school.

But there is a difference between a school setting up rules for sensible reasons, and a school setting up rules (or a parent raising a child in a certain way) for no reason other than to please and join in with the majority.

"But there is a difference between a school setting up rules for sensible reasons, and a school setting up rules (or a parent raising a child in a certain way) for no reason other than to please and join in with the majority."
I agree completely, but in this case it is NATIONAL policy and firmly rooted in health education policy so not just a silly idea.
But my arguments are less about the lunchbox (on which I hold no strong views, largely as I would choose school dinners for a variety of reasons) and more in reaction to those who are claiming that this is some sort of government conspiracy to unreasonably control them. I feel those posters should get a sense of perspective and stop being so reactionary. Their children will face a whole number of obstacles that their parents can help them overcome, but a belief that the "system" is trying to put one over on them is only going to add obstacles.

Why not, instead, demonstrate democracy and active citizenship to your children. CAMPAIGN, as the parents in Nottinghamshire did, and achieve healthy choices for every school meal. Surely this is a better example to set for children than stubborn intransigence based on a feeling of being somehow victimised.

The whole problem goes away at secondary, as no-one checks what the kids are bringing in for their packed lunches.

Interesting first post kitkat

I had miss quite a lot of the thread over the week end but I just realised one thing. To all those who say it is not OK to give a chocolate in school on the ground of "why do you not wait until your child is back home and give them the chocolate then?" I will answer by another question : since when does the nutritional value of anything we eat change according tp the geographic position we eat it at?

I think the issue for some of you is more to make sure that nobody sees your DCs eating chocolate rather than to actualy promote a balanced diet.

There is absolutely no shame in having the odd treat be it at home or in public! IME when you have to hide to eat some foods it is quite worrying!

I remember having a discussion with a friend about this and explained ds's food related allergies/issues and as a consequence his lunch. Even though she found it hard to fault what I gave ds for his lunch it potentially made her life harder if her ds saw my ds's lunch. He then would want similar high calorie food. She would then have to say 'no' and a battle would ensue. I think this is part of the problem. If some give their kids 'junk' food then the all kids might up the pestering forcing parents to say 'no'. I think a lot of parents hate having to say 'no' to their kids even when they firmly believe they should.